Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" in [Evolution] Experiment

Scientists Make Fish Grow "Hands" in Experiment That May Reveal How Fins Became Limbs

Scientists have successfully made fish grow "hands" instead of fins in an experiment that may reveal how animals transitioned to living on land
instead of only in water.

To understand how fins may have evolved into limbs, a team of scientists led by Dr. José Luis Gómez-Skarmeta at the CSIC-Universidad Pablo de
Olavide-Junta de Andalucía, in Seville, Spain, and his colleague Dr. Fernando Casares injected zebrafish with the hoxd13 gene from a mouse.

Researchers said that the hoxd13 gene, known to play a role in distinguishing body parts, codes for a protein that controls the development of
autopods, a precursor to hands and feet and paws.

Researchers explained that a full 24 hours after extra copies of the gene were introduced to the embryos, fish whose cells had taken up the gene began
developing autopods instead of fins. While they maintained growing for four days, they later died.

Fish grow ‘hands’ in genetic experiment

The group, led by Dr José Luis Gómez-Skarmeta of Spain’s CSIC-Universidad Pablo de Olavide-Junta de Andalucía in Seville, found that zebrafish
injected with a mouse gene, hoxd13, developed leg-like limbs where fins should be. This indicates that the hoxd13 gene – which occurs in the fish,
but at lower levels than in mice – helped drive the genetic changes that eventually become arms, legs, hands and feet.
There’s no hint that Dr Gómez-Skarmeta plans to try the same trick on sharks, thankfully.

I'm not saying that this specific case solidifies the argument for evolutions, thought it does supplement an already mammoth argument (no pun
intended). Obviously you believe that physical traits are determined by genetics if you understand how the experiment works. Once you accept that fact
there is an insurmountable trail of evidence backwards from where we are today. None of it leads to god, much less of it leads to aliens, all of it
indicates evolution. The theory is pretty well understood by a majority of the world. Are there particular issues you have with it that I could
address specifically rather than running through evolutionary bio 101?

I feel like I want to hug it or fight it against pikachu. You know if they coulda released this by Christmas, every kid would want one.

The real trick would have been opposable thumbs to create an army of underwater workers.

I think ethically ...I'm drawn, it's interesting but do we have the right to do it? And, if we do see ethical issues, how is it different than
selective breeding to turn aurochs into cattle or a wild fowl into chickens?

Edit: well, real or not, and I did question why a pink, fluffy thing like that would be called a zebra fish, doing so still begs the questions about
ethics.

So what conclusion are we to assume from this experiment? Does this experiment actually modal how evolution works? The concept of Evolution is
something that happens naturally over time for life to adapt to its environment for the sake of survival.

This experiment does not show the process of Evolution, but maybe something greater! That intelligent beings can and probably have in the past as
well, manipulated DNA to change life forms into something more advanced.

Creationism + Evolutionism + Intelligent Design = Interventionism

Edit: Not sure if this experiment is actually real or not, but my conclusion to any experiment where scientist Intervene in the natural genetics of a
specimen can only prove interventionism not evolutionism.

Evidence please? Other than "we can mess with genetics, so someone must have done it to us!"

We are not designed particularly intelligently.

Are you serious? The evidence was the experiment itself. Again, real or not, we know that scientist are playing with genetics, so even if this is not
a real story, there are others that are.

Now, if the experiment is being used to help prove the theory of Evolution, then its a fail because it took a scientist to "Intervene" in the
genetic code to create the mutation. It didn't happen naturally, so the only thing this experiment and others like it, are demonstrating the theory
of Intervention not Evolution.

Does this mean I do not support Evolution? No, I believe in evolution, just over long periods of time when things need to adapt to their environment,
mainly for the purpose of survival.

Does this mean I do not believe in Creationism? No, I believe that, while things do evolve over time, it doesn't explain why this happens or why
there's life in the first place.

Ok, so if Evolution proves life does mutate to adapt over long periods of time. Interventionism proves that intelligent beings (Humans, Aliens, God
etc...) can manipulate life to mutate quicker. Then the only piece missing from the equation is Creationism: What created everything, gave it order,
design and a purpose.

This is why I state all are true with this formula: Creationism (God or Source of creation) + Evolution (Ability to adapt) + Intervention Theory (God,
Aliens, Humans as catalyst for rapid evolution) = Intelligent Design (there is a method to the madness).

Now, I did catch the mistake in my original formula and fixed it above. My original point was the experiment demonstrates Intervention Theory. My
formula was meant to show that in the end there is Intelligent Design behind the process.

Now, Your quote, "We are not designed particularly intelligently", while this is your opinion and jokingly I would agree at times. However, I ask
you to define "Intelligently" or in that matter "Intelligence". In order define it, we must use something to compare it with so it can be
measurable. If we take the most "Intelligent" life form that we have actual proof of, what would it be? Man, dolphin, monkey...?

Let's just take Man for argument sake. Even though we may be able to dabble in genetics and robotics, we as a human species cannot replicate or
recreate the order in which all things are able to live, reproduce, adapt, heal itself, have feelings, the ability to learn and have
understanding...etc.

Now if that's not intelligent design, then the word intelligent has no meaning and should be removed from the dictionary and all verbal language for
it not measurable and therefore cannot be used for comparison. Which means we are not having a discussion right now about this since there is nothing
to talk about.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.